情报研究

信息来源可信度调节下的纠正类健康信息逆火效应作用机制研究——基于受控实验的探索

  • 曹坡 ,
  • 赵思莹 ,
  • 刘蕤
展开
  • 1 华中师范大学信息管理学院 武汉 430079;
    2 湖北医药学院公共卫生与健康学院 十堰 442000
曹坡,硕士研究生;赵思莹,硕士研究生。

收稿日期: 2023-07-27

  修回日期: 2023-10-17

  网络出版日期: 2024-03-28

基金资助

本文系国家社会科学基金重大项目“人本人工智能驱动的信息服务体系重构与应用研究”(项目编号:22&ZD324)研究成果之一。

Research on the Backfire Effect of Corrective Health Information Under the Information Source Credibility: A Study of Controlled Experiments

  • Cao Po ,
  • Zhao Siying ,
  • Liu Rui
Expand
  • 1 School of Information Management, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079;
    2 School of Public Health and Management, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan 442000

Received date: 2023-07-27

  Revised date: 2023-10-17

  Online published: 2024-03-28

Supported by

This work is supported by the Major Program of National Social Science Fund of China titled “Research on the Reconstruction and Application of Human-oriented Artificial Intelligence-driven Information Service System” (Grant No. 22&ZD324).

摘要

[目的/意义] 探索纠正类健康信息逆火效应的存在和作用机制,为政府和社交媒体平台提高纠正类健康信息的使用效率提供理论支持与策略建议。[方法/过程] 设置世界观逆火效应和熟悉度逆火效应实验,检验感知威胁性、感知信息质量、感知新颖性与纠正背离度间作用关系及负面情绪的中介效应,验证信息来源可信度的调节效应。[结果/结论] 研究表明:纠正类健康信息逆火效应存在。感知威胁性可以正向影响纠正背离度,负面情绪在其中发挥中介效应;信息来源可信度负向调节感知威胁性对纠正背离度的影响。在日常饮食主题的纠正类健康信息中,逆火效应更加突出,感知信息质量负向影响纠正背离度;感知新颖性不是熟悉度逆火效应的影响因素;同时,信息来源可信度在感知信息质量、感知新颖性对纠正背离度的作用间调节效应均不显著。

本文引用格式

曹坡 , 赵思莹 , 刘蕤 . 信息来源可信度调节下的纠正类健康信息逆火效应作用机制研究——基于受控实验的探索[J]. 图书情报工作, 2024 , 68(6) : 48 -59 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2024.06.005

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] Exploring the backfire effect of corrective health information can provide theoretical support and strategic suggestions for the government and online health communities to improve the efficiency of health information use.[Method/Process] The experiments on worldview backfire effect and familiarity backfire effect were designed to test the relationships among perceived threat, perceived information quality, perceived novelty, and correction divergence. The mediating effect of negative emotions and the moderating effect of information source credibility were also tested by controlled experiments.[Result/Conclusion] It is found that the backfire effect of corrective health information does exist. Perceived threat can positively influence correction divergence, and negative emotions play a mediating role. Besides, information source credibility can negatively moderate the influence of perceived threat on correction divergence. The backfire effect is more prominent for the corrective health information on daily diet. Perceived information quality has a negative impact on correction divergence. Perceived novelty is not an influencing factor in the familiarity backfire effect. Furthermore, the information source credibility has no significant moderating effect on the correction divergence.

参考文献

[1] LEWIS T. Seeking health information on the internet: lifestyle choice or bad attack of cyberchondria?[J]. Media culture & society, 2006, 28(4): 521-539.
[2] ALLCOTT H, GENTZKOW M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election[J]. Journal of economic perspectives, 2017, 31(2), 211–236.
[3] 邓胜利, 李雅静. 突发公共卫生情境下中老年人虚假健康信息应对行为研究[J]. 情报资料工作, 2021, 42(2): 43-51. (DENG S L, LI Y J. Research on the coping behavior of middle-aged and elderly people with false health information in the sudden public health situation[J]. Information and documentation services, 2021, 42(2): 43-51.)
[4] 闫慧, 刘畅, 张鹏翼, 等. 信息疫情: 信息科学家的观点与对策[J]. 图书情报知识, 2021(1): 136-143. (YAN H, LIU C, ZHANG P Y, et al. Infodemic: standpoints and solutions from information scientists[J]. Documentation, information & knowledge, 2021(1): 136-143.)
[5] BODE L, VRAGA E K. See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media[J]. Health communication, 2018, 33(9): 1131-1140.
[6] BAUTISTA J R, ZHANG Y, GWIZDKA J. US physicians' and nurses' motivations, barriers, and recommendations to correct health misinformation on social media: qualitative interview study[J]. JMIR public health and surveillance, 2021, 7(9): e27715.
[7] ROBERT J B, YAN Z, JACEK G. Healthcare professionals' acts of correcting health misinformation on social media[J]. International journal of medical informatics, 2021, 148(23): 104375.
[8] ALLEN E, COLLISSON B. Do aspirational role models inspire or backfire? perceived similarity mediates the effect of role models on minority students' college choices[J]. Journal of marketing for higher education, 2020, 30(2): 1-18.
[9] GREGORY J T, KRISTA R M, REINHARD P, et al. Identity and epistemic emotions during knowledge revision: a potential account for the Backfire Effect[J]. Discourse processes, 2016, 53(5-6): 339-370.
[10] 陈梁, 胡雅颖, 谭心莹. 基于社会网络分析的用户在线健康辟谣意愿研究——社会资本与独立型自我构念的作用[J]. 情报杂志, 2023, 42(12): 194-201. (CHEN L, HU Y, TAN X Y. Exploring online health misinformation correction based on social network analysis: the role of social capital and independent self-construal[J]. Journal of intelligence, 2023, 42(12): 194-201.)
[11] GUO X, HAN X, ZHANG X, et al. Investigating m-health acceptance from a protection motivation theory perspective: gender and age differences[J]. Telemedicine journal and e-health: the official journal of the American telemedicine association, 2015, 21(8): 661.
[12] BAO W, NI J. Could good intentions backfire? an empirical analysis of the bank deposit insurance[J]. Marketing science, 2017, 36(2): 301-319.
[13] BHATTACHARJEE A, BERGER J, MENON G. When identity marketing backfires: consumer agency in identity expression[J]. Journal of consumer research, 2014, 41(2): 294-309.
[14] BICKART B A. Carryover and backfire effects in marketing research[J]. Journal of marketing research, 1993, 30(1): 52-62.
[15] COOK J, LEWANDOWSKY S. The debunking handbook[EB/OL].[2023-12-27]. https://skepticalscience.com/debunking-handbook-2020-downloads-translations.html.
[16] ROH S, MCCOMAS K A, RICKARD L N, et al. How motivated reasoning and temporal frames may polarize opinions about wildlife disease risk[J]. Science communication, 2015, 37(3), 340-370.
[17] PETROVA P K, CIALDINI R B. Fluency of consumption imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals[J]. Journal of consumer research, 2005, 32(3): 442-452.
[18] HARDISTY D, JOHNSON E, WEBER E. A dirty word or a dirty world? attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory[J]. Psychological science, 2010(21): 86-92.
[19] SUNSTEIN C R. Deliberative trouble? why groups go to extremes[J]. Yale law journal, 2000, 110(1): 71-119.
[20] KOLLER M. Rebutting accusations: when does it work, when does it fail[J]. European journal of social psychology, 1993, 23(4): 373-389.
[21] SWIRE-THOMPSON B, DOBBS M, THOMAS A, et al. Memory failure predicts belief regression after the correction of misinformation[J]. Cognition, 2023, 230(2): 105276.
[22] SWELLER J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning[J]. Cognitive science, 1988, 12(2): 257-285.
[23] JASMYNE A S, VANESSA B, BRIONY T S, et al. Listening to misinformation while driving: cognitive load and the effectiveness of (repeated) corrections[J]. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2023, 12(3): 325-334.
[24] ECKER U K H, LEWANDOWSKY S, CHADWICK M. Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect[J]. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020, 5(1): 2-25.
[25] TREVORS G J, MUIS K R, PEKRUN R. Identity and epistemic emotions during knowledge revision: a potential account for the backfire effect[J]. Discourse processes: a multidisciplinary journal, 2016, 53(5): 339-370.
[26] SWIRE-THOMPSON B, DEGUTIS J, LAZER D. Searching for the backfire effect: measurement and design considerations[J]. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2020, 9(3): 286-299.
[27] TORRANCE R B E P. A theory of psychological reactance by Jack W. Brehm[J]. The American journal of psychology, 1968, 81(1): 133-134.
[28] 熊炎. 辟谣会引发逆反之举还是自知之明与保守之心?——辟谣威胁性与辟谣正面效应的倒U型关系探索[J]. 新闻与传播研究, 2021, 28(10): 39-56, 127. (XIONG Y. Will correcting myths induce the worldview backfire effect or both the self-knowledge effect and the conservative mind effect? exploring the inverted U-shaped relationship between myth-corrections' threat and positive effect[J]. Journalism & communication, 2021, 28(10): 39-56, 127.)
[29] 熊炎. 解释警示逆火效应是醍醐灌顶还是火上浇油?[J]. 新闻与传播研究, 2019, 26(1): 58-76, 127. (XIONG Y. Benefit and harm of explaining and warning the backfire effect[J]. Journalism & communication, 2019, 26(1): 58-76, 127.)
[30] 吴布尔, 薛冬, 杨克. 重大突发公共事件中社交媒体用户信息行为研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2021, 44(10): 137-141. (WU B L, XUE D, YANG K. Research on the information behavior of social media users in major public emergencies[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2021, 44(10): 137-141.)
[31] SWIRE-THOMPSON B, MITCH D, WOOD P J, et al. The backfire effect after correcting misinformation is strongly associated with reliability[J]. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 2022, 151(7): 1655-1665.
[32] HICKS J L, MARSH R L. Toward specifying the attentional demands of recognition memory[J]. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 2000, 26(6): 1483-1498.
[33] 王伟伟, 宁瑨, 魏婷. 基于认知负荷的用户感知体验情感评价方法[J]. 包装工程, 2022, 43(4): 147-155. (WANG W W, NING J, WEI T. Emotional evaluation method of user perceptual experience based on the perspective of cognitive load[J]. Packaging engineering, 2022, 43(4): 147-155.)
[34] 张玥, 王坚, 余姝, 等. 信息表征对移动医疗APP隐私政策阅读效果的影响研究——基于认知负荷理论[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(11): 3-13. (ZHANG Y, WANG J, YU S, et al. Research on the influence of information representation on privacy policy of m-health app: based on cognitive load theory[J]. Library and information service, 2021, 65(11): 3-13.)
[35] 曾关秀, 胡峰, 温志强. 信息个性化干预对网络辟谣效果的影响研究[J]. 情报资料工作, 2022, 43(1): 41-51. (ZENG G X, HU F, WEN Z Q. Research on the influence of information personalized intervention on the effect of internet rumor refutation[J]. Information and documentation services, 2022, 43(1): 41-51.)
[36] 张洋, 张婉莹, 王燕青, 等. 生成性绘图与合作对高中生科学知识学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 830-838. (ZHANG Y, ZHANG W Y, WANG Y Q, et al. The effects of learner-generated drawing and cooperative learning on scientific knowledge learning of high school students[J]. Psychological development and education, 2022, 38(6): 830-838.)
[37] 牟宇鹏, 吉峰. 微商推送信息行为对消费者接受意愿的影响[J]. 经济与管理, 2017, 31(6): 62-69. (MOU Y P, JI F. The effect of WeChat business pushing information behavior on consumers' willingness to accept[J]. Economy and management, 2017, 31(6): 62-69.)
[38] 赵宇.基于公众认知的公共安全风险沟通效果影响因素研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨工程大学, 2017. (ZHAO Y. Research on the influence factors of the public safety risk communication effects based on public perception[D]. Harbin: Harbin Engineering University, 2017.)
[39] MOON W K, CHUNG M, JONES-JANG S M. How can we fight partisan biases in the COVID-19 pandemic? AI source labels on Fact-checking messages reduce motivated reasoning[J]. Mass communication and society, 2023, 26(4): 646-670.
[40] LIANG Y. Understanding online health information use: the case of people with physical disabilities[J]. Journal of turbulence, 2017, 18(6): 433-460.
[41] NICOLAOU A I, MCKNIGHT D H. Perceived information quality in data exchanges: effects on risk, trust, and intention to use.[J] Information systems research, 2006, 17(4): 332–351.
[42] SAEED K A, HWANG Y, YI M Y. Toward an integrative framework for online consumer behavior research: a meta-analysis approach[J]. Journal of organizational & end user computing, 2003, 15(4): 1-26.
[43] STVILIA B, MON L, YI Y J. A model for online consumer health information quality[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(9), 1781-1791.
[44] 张维维, 孙自愿, 曹馨予, 等. 创新驱动发展:感知产品创新对高新技术产品购买意图的影响研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2020, 40(7): 10-17. (ZHANG W W, SUN Z Y, CAO Y Y, et al. Innovation-driven development: impact of perceived product innovation on purchase intention of high-tech products[J]. Science and technology management research, 2020, 40(7): 10-17.)
[45] 周玲元, 李俊, 王雪. 高校图书馆微信公众平台服务质量评价研究[J]. 图书馆论坛, 2018, 38(11): 84-93. (ZHOU L Y, LI J, WANG X. Service quality evaluation of university library WeChat official account platform[J]. Library tribune, 2018, 38(11): 84-93.)
[46] 罗爱静, 陈阳, 谢文照, 等.健康焦虑人群的网络健康信息搜索行为影响因素研究[J]. 情报资料工作, 2022, 43(2): 66-75. (LUO A J, CHEN Y, XIE W Z, et al. A study on the influencing factors of online health information search behavior of health anxiety population[J]. Information and documentation services, 2022, 43(2): 66-75.)
[47] 张嵩, 汤亚男, 陈昊. 互联网慈善信息转发行为研究——基于说服传播理论的双重态度模型[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(14): 109-118. (ZHANG S, TANG Y N, CHEN H. Research on online charity information forwarding behavior: a dual attitude model based on the theory of persuasion communication[J]. Library and information service, 2021, 65(14): 109-118.)
[48] HOVLAND C I, WEISS W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness[J]. The public opinion quarterly, 1951, 15(4): 635-650.
[49] TVERSKY A, KAHNEMAN D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and effects in judgements reveals some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty[J]. New ideas in psychology, 1973, 185(4157): 1124-1131.
[50] HEDDY B C, DANIELSON R W, SINATRA G M, et al. Modifying knowledge, emotions, and attitudes regarding genetically modified foods[J]. Journal of experimental education, 2017, 85(3): 1-21.
[51] LIANG H, XUE Y, PINSONNEAULT A, et al. What users do besides problem-focused coping when facing IT security threats: an emotion-focused coping perspective[J]. MIS quarterly, 2019, 43(2): 373-394.
[52] 徐颖, 郭雯君, 张梦柳. 企业微博内容呈现特性对信息渗透度的作用机理研究——基于情绪认知理论的研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(21): 96-104. (XU Y, GUO W J, ZHANG M L. Research on the mechanism of the presentation of the firm-generated content and the information permeability: based on the cognitive emotion theory[J]. Library and information service, 2018, 62(21): 96-104.)
[53] 查先进, 张晋朝, 严亚兰. 微博环境下用户学术信息搜寻行为影响因素研究——信息质量和信源可信度双路径视角[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2015, 41(3): 71-86. (ZHA X J, ZHANG J C, YAN Y L. Impacting factors of users' academic information seeking behavior in the context of microblogs: a dual-route perspective of information quality and information source credibility[J]. Journal of library science in China, 2015, 41(3): 71-86.)
[54] YI M Y, YOON J J, DAVIS J M, et al. Untangling the antecedents of initial trust in Web-based health information: the roles of argument quality, source expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk[J]. Decision support systems, 2013, 55(1): 284-295.
[55] BARNES S J, VIDGEN R. Measuring Web site quality improvements: a case study of the forum on strategic management knowledge exchange[J]. Industrial management & data systems, 2003, 103(5/6): 297-309.
[56] SHAH C, POMERANTZ J. Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA[C]//International ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval. New York: ACM, 2010.
[57] TOKUNAGA R S. Engagement with novel internet technologies: the role of perceived novelty in the development of the deficient self-regulation of Internet use and media habits[M]. Tucson: The University of Arizona, 2012.
[58] WU X, QI W, HU X, et al. Consumers' purchase intentions toward products against city smog: exploring the influence of risk information processing[J]. Natural hazards, 2017, 88(1): 611-632.
[59] COULTER K S, PUNJ G N. The effects of cognitive resource requirements, availability, and argument quality on brand attitudes: a melding of elaboration likelihood and cognitive resource matching theories[J]. Journal of advertising, 2004, 33(4): 53-63.
[60] DENS N, PELSMACKER P D. Consumer response to different advertising appeals for new products: the moderating influence of branding strategy and product category involvement[J]. Journal of brand management, 2010, 18(1): 50-65.
[61] 朱云琴, 陈渝.双路径视角下在线健康社区用户健康信息搜寻行为影响因素研究[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2022, 41(10): 83-96. (ZHU Y Q, CHEN Y. Research on influencing factors of users' health information seeking behavior in online health community based on the perspective of dual paths[J]. Library journal, 2022, 41(10): 83-96.)
文章导航

/